Glanton v. Glanton, 2172

• Decision Date: 25 April 1994
• Docket Number: No. 2172,2172
• Citation: 443 S.E.2d 810,314 S.C. 58
• Parties: Johnny Lewis GLANTON, Respondent, v. Lucile G. GLANTON, Appellant.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

Page 810

443 S.E.2d 810

314 S.C. 58

Johnny Lewis GLANTON, Respondent, v. Lucile G. GLANTON, Appellant.

No. 2172.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Submitted March 8, 1994.

Decided April 25, 1994.

Stephen L. Hudson, Columbia, for appellant.

Kenneth M. Mathews, Columbia, for respondent.

CURETON, Judge:

In this domestic action, Lucile Glanton (the mother) appeals a family court order changing primary placement of the parties' minor child from her to Johnny Glanton (the father). Taking our own view of the evidence in this case, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge and, therefore, affirm. ¹

The parties were divorced in 1985 when their child was four years old. They were granted joint custody, but the child primarily resided with the mother. The father sought primary placement with him when the child's performance in school began to rapidly deteriorate. ² At the time of the hearing in this case, the child was in the fifth grade.

When the child entered the fourth grade, his grades began to plunge and he received several F's for the first time. This decline continued and became more dramatic in the first nine-weeks of the fifth grade. The child received four F's, one D, and three C's, his worst performance in any single nine-week period. During this period, his score on an achievement test placed him at the late second grade level in reading and spelling, and suggested "significant difficulty in these two areas relative to his average intelligence level." The child's teacher echoed these concerns, testifying that reading is the child's fundamental problem, and it impacts on his grades in other subjects. Despite an indication that the child may suffer from dyslexia, the mother refused to allow completion of the necessary testing. Instead, she blamed the father and the child's teachers for his poor performance in school.

Halfway through the second nine-week period of the fifth grade, the family court awarded the father primary placement pendente lite. By the end of the second nine-weeks grading period, the child's grades had improved dramatically, rising from an overall average of 0.875 to 2.25 on an equally weighted four-point scale. While the child was in the father's primary placement, this improvement continued with the child's overall average rising to 2.75 for the third nine-week grading period.

The trial judge found that the child was "educationally endangered" due to the mother's inability or unwillingness to acknowledge or understand that the child is having great difficulty in school and rapidly falling behind his peers, particularly in the fundamental subject of reading. The trial judge also found that the father fully recognizes the scope of the problem and has taken affirmative steps to deal with the child's reading and other educational problems. Therefore, based on the child's improved performance while in the father's custody and the recommendation of the guardian ad litem, the court changed the primary placement of the child to the father. The joint custody arrangement, however, remained intact.

In challenging the change of primary placement, the mother argues the father failed to demonstrate a substantial change of circumstances since the last custody order. ³ Specifically, the mother argues the father failed to show any change in her "outlook" on their child's education and best interests. We disagree. There is ample evidence that the mother's outlook and approach to her son's education since the last court order have adversely affected the child.

In making custody decisions "the totality of the circumstances peculiar to each case constitutes the only scale upon which the ultimate decision can be weighed." Wheeler v. Gill, 307 S.C. 94, 99, 413 S.E.2d 860, 863 (Ct.App.1992); See Davenport v. Davenport, 265 S.C. 524, 527, 220 S.E.2d 228, 230 (1975). The education and parenting skills of a parent are legitimate factors to consider in making this determination. See Davenport, supra. In all child custody controversies, however, the controlling consideration is what is in the best interest of the child. McCoy v. McCoy, 283 S.C. 383, 323 S.E.2d 517 (1984).

The education of a child is something that affects his best interest. In fact, in today's society education is often the determinative factor between success and failure. The mother's refusal to allow the school to further test the child after his achievement test scores indicated a need for further testing illustrates her inability to recognize the gravity and far reaching impact of educational choices. Furthermore, the evidence indicates the mother has interfered with the child's education, by personally doing and/or correcting the child's homework. His tutor was very surprised by the child's low grades, because his homework was always very good. The child's teacher agreed that his homework was always very good, but his classroom work was on a much lower level. Since living with the father, however, the child's classroom performance has "matched" his homework.

Thus, the mother's "outlook" on education has, we hold, detrimentally affected the welfare and best interests of the child. The educational deterioration with the mother, as opposed to the subsequent progress when placed with the father, are such significant changes of circumstances as to justify the modification of the previous custody arrangement. See Gilbert v. Gilbert, 270 S.C. 202, 241 S.E.2d 559 (1978) (child's severe learning disability subsequent to original custody award combined with existence of superior educational facilities in area where father maintained home constituted sufficient change of circumstances to justify modification of previous custody arrangement); See Peay v. Peay, 260 S.C. 108, 112, 194 S.E.2d 392, 394 (1973) ("Notwithstanding our rule that custody will...